Reviews
The Descent: Part 2
Reviewed by: Ben McCarthy
Rating: 4 out of 10
Movie Details: View here
Cast:
Shauna MacDonald as Sarah
Natalie Mendoza as Juno
Krysten Cummings as Elien Rios
Gavin O'Herlihy as Vaines
Joshua Dallas as Greg
Anna Skellern as Cath
Douglas Hodge as Dan Shepard
Directed by Jon Harris
Review:
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, Poltergeist and The Blair Witch Project. These films have one thing in common; they are all horror classics, but they are followed by below par sequels that are constrained by horror clich�s. That is the main problem with The Descent: Part 2; there is no need for it to exist, the film struggles to find a reason, then it just gives up and becomes a film full of predictable set pieces.
The story is set within a couple of hours after the events of the first film. Sarah is brought under the custody of the local sheriff and is taken back into the cave, with an expedition team, to help find the other cave divers. But unknown to the other cave divers, there is something horrifying waiting from then in the darkness. Is it just me, or is this one of the oldest horror clich�s in book to warrant an unwanted sequel from a modern horror classic? But they don't finish there, all of the characters are straight from the back pages of other horror movies and it is frustrating. In the first film, all of the characters were well thought through, they were there for a reason; we cared about them. So by time the shit-it-the-fan, so to speak, we were horrified to see them die, we felt each loss, which was carried throughout the film. But in Part 2, we just don't care about them. They are so ignorant and stupid that I was starting to lose my patience with the film entirely, and then I began to laugh at their mistakes, which isn't a good sign for a horror movie. The film is really easy to read, you can tell when a Crawler is going to appear, or when there is a false scare or even what the ending is going to be.
The first film just had one idea to it, which was done very well. It had a simple premise, girls going cave diving and finding something that nature didn't intended. It was short, sweet and made a real impact. In Part 2, you certainly feel the idea being stretched to the limit and it came to a point where it was becoming repetitive and a there is a sense of d�j� vu through out the film.
The Crawlers themselves are not as effective this time round, because we already know what they are capable of and we know their basic attack strategy, which demolishes the scares of the film.
But, it is a very well made film with very impressive set design. The caves themselves, filmed inside a studio in London, look and feel very real and the film is still able to create the sense of claustrophobia from the first film. It doesn't skimp on the gore either. Bones get cracked, heads get smashed, people get nibbled upon, lots of shots of women get covered in blood and we are reminded why a drill is such a good weapon.
It delivers the cheap scares, but after a while the film becomes repetitive and tedious. The film doesn't forget its own timeline, however, which is nice for the fans of the original to see that some of the bodies are still there.
If you are in the mood for a cheap Friday night scare with plenty of gore, then this is the film for you. But for the most cynical viewer, this is just a simple case of d�j� vu. Predictable and clich�-ridden, this superfluous sequel will no doubt disappoint the fans of the original film proving once again that you can't make the same film again expecting the same results.
Related Articles
From our network of sites
Comments
Posted by: Evan B on December 13, 2009 at 22:33:20
First off, this is very disappointing to hear. Second, is there ANY way we can get an expanded review? This seems like it was written in a few minutes without fully detailing why the film fails where the other succeeds.
Posted by: Evan B on December 13, 2009 at 22:34:54
First off, this is very disappointing to hear. Second, is there ANY way we can get an expanded review? This seems like it was written in a few minutes without fully detailing why the film fails where the other succeeds.
Posted by: Matthew H. on December 14, 2009 at 19:27:11
Don't listen to Evan b.
Great review of a film that didn't deserve to be reviewed at all.
Posted by: justin on January 7, 2010 at 08:04:30
the way i interpreted the ending of the original is that she never got out of the cave... i assumed that's how i was supposed to interpret it. i was disappointed when i heard they were making a sequel and i'm not suprised it doesn't live up to the original. it is a great horror movie and i agree with it being number one on the list for best of the decade. of course with that said, i'm still definetly gonna watch this, pretty much because i have to. and i know it's not as good as the original, but i really liked texas CM2. it was a good revenge flick, and i always got the feeling it was where rob zombie got the idea for devil's rejects.
Posted by: Vortex on January 7, 2010 at 09:30:11
So anyone else remember the Crawlers looking like snaggle-tooth gorilla's in the first one?
Me neither.
Posted by: kow626 on January 7, 2010 at 13:17:26
aw geez. as if the 1st one wasn't complete, total, and utter CRAP. i got nothin else to say.
1
Add a comment